- Published on
Felthouse v. Bindley, 1862 CCP
The plaintiff's nephew intended to use the defendant, an auctioneer, to arrange an auction in Tamworth to get rid of his farming stock, which included a particular horse. The plaintiff and his nephew had an oral negotiation in order to purchase the horse. On January 2, 1862, the plaintiff uncle wrote to his nephew after they had a disagreement on the horse's purchase. He said, "As there may be a mistake about him, I will split the difference—£30 15s—1 paying all the expenses from Tamworth." You can send him whenever it's most convenient for you, up until March 25. I'll consider the horse mine for £30 15s if I hear nothing more about him. When the nephew failed to respond, the defendant sold the horse at auction for £33, on February 25. The defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff on February 26 apologizing for his error, and the nephew followed up on February 27 with a letter mentioning the error with the horse I sold you. The plaintiff filed a conversion action, stating that the defendant had sold the horse on February 25th, it was decided that the plaintiff had no right to the horse and was not the owner. Per Willes J.
…it is…clear that the uncle had no right to impose upon the nephew a sale of his horse for £30 15s unless he chose to comply with the condition of writing to repudiate the offer… The horse in question being catalogued with the rest of the stock, the auctioneer (the defendant) was told that it was already sold. It is clear therefore that the nephew in his own mind intended his uncle to have the horse at the price which he (the uncle) had named—£30 15s: but he had not communicated such an intention to his uncle, or done anything to bind himself.
The plaintiff's nephew intended to use the defendant, an auctioneer, to arrange an auction in Tamworth to get rid of his farming stock, which included a particular horse. The plaintiff and his nephew had an oral negotiation in order to purchase the horse. On January 2, 1862, the plaintiff uncle wrote to his nephew after they had a disagreement on the horse's purchase. He said, "As there may be a mistake about him, I will split the difference—£30 15s—1 paying all the expenses from Tamworth." You can send him whenever it's most convenient for you, up until March 25. I'll consider the horse mine for £30 15s if I hear nothing more about him. When the nephew failed to respond, the defendant sold the horse at auction for £33, on February 25. The defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff on February 26 apologizing for his error, and the nephew followed up on February 27 with a letter mentioning the error with the horse I sold you. The plaintiff filed a conversion action, stating that the defendant had sold the horse on February 25th, it was decided that the plaintiff had no right to the horse and was not the owner. Per Willes J.
…it is…clear that the uncle had no right to impose upon the nephew a sale of his horse for £30 15s unless he chose to comply with the condition of writing to repudiate the offer… The horse in question being catalogued with the rest of the stock, the auctioneer (the defendant) was told that it was already sold. It is clear therefore that the nephew in his own mind intended his uncle to have the horse at the price which he (the uncle) had named—£30 15s: but he had not communicated such an intention to his uncle, or done anything to bind himself.
0 Comments